decompilation protection

New comment
 

Is it possible to protect against decompilation??? By means of a deliberate code error...?

or is it broken anyway?

 
age_nt >> :

By means of an intentional code error...

Very interesting... how? Can I give you an example, at least a simple one... I don't see how an "intentional" error would work correctly for an expert

 

For example with an unused function...

double Function() { ............. } return (0); }

 
...not exactly a mistake...
 
The point is that I have a decompiler walking around the network ...
If I take my ex4 file without errors and warnings - it breaks...
If it does, it doesn't... that's the question.
 
age_nt >> :

For example with an unused function...

double Function() { ............. } return (0); }

ah... I see, I also thought of piling everything together, for example several dozens of TS, with only one trading, of course this is not 99% protection, but for decompiler it will be much harder to figure out :))

 
RomanS >> :

ahh... I see, I also thought about piling everything, for example, a few dozens of TS, while only one would trade, of course it's not 99% protection, but for decompiler it would be much harder to understand :))

You can also add a bunch of calls to external libraries, checking of obviously but not obviously true conditions, etc., etc. If the resulting code is comparable in size to, say, excel.exe, then the protection can be considered quite effective. By the way, with proper level of interest, such things can be automated (i.e. transformation of "normal" EA into a "monster")

 
alsu >> :

You can also add a bunch of calls to external libraries, checking of obviously but not obviously true conditions, etc., etc. If the resulting code is comparable in size to, say, excel.exe, then the protection can be considered quite effective. By the way, with proper level of interest, such things can be automated (i.e. transformation of "normal" EA into "monster")

Interesting solution. Especially with automation of "encryption" process. Respect

 
Don't bother - all unnecessary things are neatly cut off with banal printers, it becomes a bit more troublesome, but they are still removable. But if you miss a condition somewhere and something goes wrong with the right customer, there will be trouble :(
 
ForexTools >> :
Don't bother - all unnecessary things are neatly cut off with banal Printers, it becomes a bit troublesome, but it is still removable. But if you miss somewhere with a condition and something goes wrong with right customer - there will be "trouble" :(

is removed if the rubbish is not linked to the code. But if, for example, the listed tricks are combined, for example, with throwing back and forth values of the required variables, the algorithm gets confused and simple tracing is no longer sufficient. But possible errors can still be suppressed exactly by automating the process.

 
age_nt >> :

Is it possible to protect against decompilation??? By means of an intentional code error...

or is it broken anyway?

from simple - you can apply the DLL variant

you take away part of the code in the DLL...

against a serious hack will not save

but against dilettantes ( having a decompiler) is good protection

12345678
New comment